|
|
Expansive Ellipses
(04-23-2006,
10:20 PM)
|
9/11 conspiracy stuff goes here and nowhere else
#1
Enough thread derailing. This thread will remain available to discuss "alternative" september 11th explanations and accuse the government or space aliens or mossad or whoever else, but it won't be tolerated elsewhere. Have fun!
|
|
Professional Bastard
(04-23-2006,
10:31 PM)
|
#7
Originally Posted by BlueTsunami:
The thing that makes it believable for me is the janitor. I mean come on, if there's one thing I learned from sitcoms throughout the years, it's the janitor's role as lorekeeper for our people. |
|
(04-23-2006,
10:39 PM)
|
#13
![]() ONE OF THE TERRORISTS! |
|
(04-23-2006,
11:00 PM)
|
#19
I'm still debating this with a bunch of conspiracy nuts. I said I wouldn't, but they pulled me in
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com...0&#entry823960 Here's the essence of their belief lol: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com...dpost&p=822867 Any further suggestions on how to shut these people up? |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
04:58 AM)
|
#20
Here is video from the Pentagon security camera showing the plane hitting the building. I'm sure it won't buy you much from the truly dellusional nutjobs, but its worth offering it for evidence.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/0...agon.pictures/ |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:22 AM)
|
#22
right. so are the mods going to clean out any irrelavant posts in this thread?
i'll start of with posting the 9/11 revisited movie. please dont comment unless youve actually watched it http://www.911revisited.com/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...809939&pl=true other intresting links http://www.st911.org/ http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/ http://www.geocities.com/killtown/ - Excellent site with solid researching http://physics911.net/ - Great reading - 911 explained scientifically lets keep this thread on topic and maybe this tuff can be left out of other 9/11 threads |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:30 AM)
|
#23
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
unfortunatly the 9/11 government plot theory doesnt fall or stand with the fact that a plane did or did not hit the pentagon. Since planes were remote controlled into the wtc, a plane could have been remote controlled into the pentagon. those pictures arent convincing though. theres much better footage witch isnt beeing released for some reason |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:31 AM)
|
#24
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
Pheonix, I know you do somethnig with CNN (or at least I think you do). but this might work better if the video you posted wasn't limited to CNN members or whatever this is limited to. edit: Nevermind. Only Quicktime doesn't seem to work |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:39 AM)
|
#28
Originally Posted by Hajaz:
Yeah, the only problem with remote control planes is that you then have to argue that the US government kidnapped or killed hundreds of US citizens. This is the same US government that was incompetent during Katrina and was unable to hide that incompetence. People who work for the government aren't any more intelligent than the average person on GAF, a coverup of that magnitude would be all but impossible. |
|
Racist
(04-24-2006,
05:43 AM)
|
#29
I'm not subscribing to the conspiracy, but where can we find engineers/scientists that explain how the pancake collapse fell at free fall, ie with absolutely 0 resistance? Or how a couple of sporadic fires in building 7 creating a perfect, evenly distributed free fall?
|
|
Banned
(04-24-2006,
05:43 AM)
|
#30
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
|
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:45 AM)
|
#31
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
|
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:48 AM)
|
#33
Originally Posted by bggrthnjsus:
They landed the planes, gassed everyone on the planes, and did what with them? I mean to be honest if they were going to go through all this - why not just remote control the planes that the passengers are on? Nevermind the fact that we have evidence in the form of conversations that the passengers were hijacked. That's really the problem with much of the conspiracy - you'd have to throw out much of what you know and go down this dark road where there is little to no supporting evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:48 AM)
|
#34
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
I think the idea that these people subscribe to is that the people on the planes were all tied to the government in some way. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:49 AM)
|
#36
Originally Posted by Ecrofirt:
Yeah, but we know that to not be true - starting with the pilots and their families. You'd have to do some 30 degrees of Kevin Bacon thing to get everybody on the planes tied to the government. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:57 AM)
|
#37
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
Hey hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. The conspiracy theorists are nuts, plain and simple. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
05:59 AM)
|
#38
Originally Posted by Ecrofirt:
I know, I'm just saying. The number of variables you'd have to toss in to make these conspiracy theories even plausible is incredible. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:02 AM)
|
#40
Originally Posted by Phoenix:
so youre saying the government is too dumb to pull it off? do you honnestly believe that? just because they left Orleans (intentionally?) in shit for 3 days? Governments are backed by thinktanks made up of far more inteligent people then muppets such as the Gearge W you know. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:04 AM)
|
#41
|
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:12 AM)
|
#42
Originally Posted by teh_pwn:
If I were to hazard a guess it would be that buildings 1 and 2 started to pancake internally just before the external structure showed signs of it. That may explain the "puffs" of smoke seen right before the collapse. The air inside has to go somewhere. As far as #7 goes, with all the fancy framework necessary to build it above the substation there could have been unseen damage that brought it down. Just because they didn't any doesn't mean there wasn't support damage. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:13 AM)
|
#43
Originally Posted by Hajaz:
Yes, the government IS too dumb to pull it off. The level of conspiracy involving thousands of people is well beyond their grasp.
Quote:
Governments aren't backed by thinktanks, they use thinktanks. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:14 AM)
|
#44
Originally Posted by Hajaz:
Why would they WANT to pull it off that way? You're talking about a MASSIVE conspiracy that just happened to work out perfectly. Why take the chance of something going wrong when all they had to do was demolish the building with explosives without the complication of the planes? |
|
avoidin' the legal in and outs of bangin yo baby's mama
(04-24-2006,
06:20 AM)
|
#46
I wish someone would come up with an intelligent reply to the whole WTC7 thing. I'm not one to subscribe to the huge conspiracy but there is something funny about a regular steel framed building not built like WTC1 and WTC2 pancaking like it did.
The Oklahoma City bombing took out nearly half the building and it still didn't collapse. They had to demo it more than a month later. Supposedly there was superficial debris damage and fire in WTC7 and the thing pancaked. Last edited by The Shadow : 04-24-2006 at 06:23 AM. |
|
Racist
(04-24-2006,
06:24 AM)
|
#47
Originally Posted by The Shadow:
Agreed. How could spotted fires cause the building to fall evenly at the speed of free fall? Aren't these things built with complex trusses and force members (I'm comp E, so I may say things incorrectly) so that if a small fire damaged something, other members would take more stress. So even if the force overcame the the entire system, it would do so asymmetrically, and the building would fall lopsided and slowly. |
|
Member
(04-24-2006,
06:27 AM)
|
#49
wtc7 didnt even doesnt even try to look like its pancaking.
its a traditional bottom -top collapse like in a contolled demolition. heres another vid:http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg heres what the oficial fema report had to say on the matter: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” |